Uncyclopedia talk:Votes for deletion/old


		This article was nominated for deletion on March 23, 2005. The result of the discussion was Keep.


		This article was nominated for deletion on August 6, 2005. The result of the discussion was Keep.


		This article was nominated for deletion on December 12, 2006. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep.


		This article was nominated for deletion on April 1, 2008. The result of the discussion was April Fool's.

Compilation albums: Archive 1

Mark Steere

This page about a well-known game designer has been deleted for no good reason without prior discussion. Please change it back including the talk page.

The only thing I found was:

The deletion and move log for this page are provided here for convenience:

   02:59, July 30, 2011 Thekillerfroggy (Talk | contribs) huffed "Mark Steere" ‎ (Burned in Forest Fire Week)

How do you like?

These apples? If you wish to comment please do so in the forum. Mr N Fork you! 15:58, Apr 3

This place

Is going into conniptions. Someone Keep the nominations and archive the red links! Saberwolf116 22:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Er...

I would like to help out with this process! I would like to keep some of these articles. However, I cannot edit the page to vote. Could somebody tell me why? Staircase CUN^t 17:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to be a registered user for a few days before you can edit semi-protected pages like this one. I think its 5 days, but I'm not sure. --Mnb'z 17:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ok! Thanks for telling me that. Staircase CUN^t 17:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Time limits

Shouldn't we keep articles on VFD a minimum of 24 hours so that people who want to keep articles can vote on the issue? There was recently an article that was deleted in just under 3 hours after nomination. (Or failing that, how about a 24 hour minimum if there is at least one keep vote, i.e. the vote is "contested") --Mnb'z 17:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, I came up with the idea a long time ago of a minimum time of 24 hours an article had to be on here. Spang said he liked the idea. MrN said it had to be amended that if an article had a lot of keep support, it should be allowed to be removed sooner. That is the law of the land, as says Dexter. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 17:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

And by that, I mean make a forum about it, in which we will have a vote, people will get all random, and RAHB will suck a penis. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 17:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Notice

Hey guys, I'm wanting some opinions on my request for changing the Vfd template to a new version. You can see my request here. Thanks! Dylanlip (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

When nominating an article...

CHECK THE BUGGERING HISTORY YOU BUGGERS! /end rant. Mr N Fork you! 15:27, Jul 9

Huh?

Why can I not suggest an article for VFD? Its locked for me - - - Pie+Muffin = Greatness Barf- + -Observe 11:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait a few days, then try again. It's closed to really new accounts. This is because really new users can't be trusted with the responsibility of VFD. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 11:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Instruction Creep

The list of instructions is starting to look rather long. And the 6 colors of text at the bottom isn't helping. --Mn-z 06:47, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Format change

Someone has changed the format of voting, complicating the process, evidently with the sole goal of prettiness. Maintaining a numbered list instead of a bulleted list required him to edit the vote on Shiva, moving my reply to RabbiTechno away from the vote to which I was replying. This confuses things, though possibly, again, the table is prettier. About the only benefit I can see to the change is that Jupiterfox will never again figure out how to cast a vote.

If you want to do something useful, flip Delete and Keep. I want to read the case against an article before I read the rebuttal. Spıke Ѧ 15:31 23-May-10

It doesn't complicate it in the least. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 15:38, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

It makes it a lot easier to see where things stand, which is useful for Admins.
It is no more difficult than editing the fucking VFH or VFP, in fact, it is now essentially identical.
I have restored your comments to the way they originally were.
You're a fucking cunt.
???
Profit.

Copyright 2010 -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 15:42, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

You forgot that VFD isn't a comment place. LEAVE YOUR STUPID COMMENTS IN YOUR POCKET!! MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 15:44, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

But seriously....

You guys don't like the format change? The only thing that's really changed is the fact it self-tallies. I thought everyone would like that... Also, if you want to leave a comment directly under a vote, all you have to do is #:And whatever comment you're saying. But this is reminding you that VFD isn't suppose to be a discussion page, so this should only be done sparingly. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 12:52, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Regarding LEAVING MY STUPID COMMENTS IN MY POCKET (you, above), VFD had, and still has, a section for comments. You are right that in-line comments are possible too.
The separate change from a bulleted list to a numbered list discourages in-line comments, however. If not done exactly right, the next vote goes back to Number 1. I'd go back to the bulleted list even if you keep the new template.
It doesn't self-tally; only sums the Keep and Delete votes, which users must bump--and even you forgot to do so once today.

I can live with the new format. But would still like to see Delete (the case) presented before Keep (the rebuttal). Spıke Ѧ 13:17 28-May-10

Do NOT click any links!/*

While I have to wonder why or even how people would make so many of those, putting the end ones here seems a mite odd. Anyhow, my point is, how can we vote on them without taking into consideration the great pile of linked sub pages within the Do NOT click any links! thing? And deleting them wouldn't so much be deletion as editing, in a way, as they are part of the pile... ~ Lyrithya *shifty eyes* (words) (actions) -- 20100718 - 15:41 (UTC)

base template

Someone cut the base template for the VFD submissions. I have no idea when this occured. Can someone put it back? --Wilytank 20:54, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

I've restored it from the history. Spıke Ѧ 21:02 27-Sep-10

Note to users

I've modified {{Votervfd}} to flip the tables because nominator and backers should present their arguments (Delete) before the rebuttals (Keep). Spıke Ѧ 12:22 1-Nov-10

They already do, by nomming and giving their reasons why. This overturns (literally) five years of how this has been voted on, and such a change should be discussed and voted on, imnho. Aleister 12:46 1 11

They still do, in time, and should also do so vertically. It doesn't change anything about voting or coding your vote. Spıke Ѧ 12:50 1-Nov-10

Can someone add this?

Whoops! Maybe you were looking for Lemony Snicket?

Laughing Jack The Goon 04:18, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

Why? --Wilytank can be a pain in the ass. 15:47, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. You mean that section of that page? I think you may be confused. This is a wiki. If you don't like part of a page, you can cut it out yourself. If others disagree, they will put it back. Then they'll shank you as you get in a cab! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 19:46, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

capacity of VFD

Could we increase the number of articles allowed on VFD at one time to 25 ? I always feel 20 is a little bit small... 14:08, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk)

GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 14:11, 13 March 2011

I regret ever convincing MrN to increase it to 20, and now you want 25? That's just deletionism going to fucking far. Most of the articles that are getting deleted nowadays shouldn't even be on here. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 14:15, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

Let's increase it to 33,0000 and then put every article here on it. Then shut down VFD permanently. If you don't think this is a great idea, you're totally fucking wrong. mAttlobster. (hello) 14:19, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

For.

1 2 3 4 ~ 20:05, 13 March 2011

I agree with Coronium. Mainly because the 20 articles limit got me banned. --Scofield 11:03, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

Whuh Happun?

Wasn't there an important page here an minute ago?--Count of Monkey Crisco 00:34, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

There was never a page here. mAttlobster. (hello) 00:36, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Then why did I have the bowl Bart? Why did I have the bowl??!!! --Count of Monkey Crisco 00:43, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I am an idiot, I deleted it, and I've been trying to bring it back, but perhaps I shall have to contact wikia ad see if they can't run a script database-side. Meantime, I'me going to try one last time to pull one of the last revisions out of somewhere else, and if anyone does anything to that that ain't normal VFD stuff... well... not terribly much I can do, though it is tiresome enough to screw up so monumentally without a bunch of lemurs bouncing around making things worse. But this is Uncyclopedia... 1 2 3 4 ~ 00:51, 21 March 2011

From List of weapons that exist, but shouldn't

Yeah? Well give me a reason. It's so ugly and not funny. But of course, I forgot, I only did this just to get attention. Sure. --Mimo&maxus i am a cunt Hyperbole created this sig Bevanz provided the images 22:24, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

If you want to keep putting words into my mouth, be my guest. But since you asked so nicely for a reason, I'll give you one: it's funny and it's a classic. The fact that it's so large and popular is a testament to how many people have enjoyed it. -- TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 22:28, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was talking about Dexter. He said that. The thing is: It is funny in some parts but it's bad in other which are the most of the article. But if you people thing that this bad formated thing is good I can't change your mind. --Mimo&maxus i am a cunt Hyperbole created this sig

Bevanz provided the images

You saw how much clean up it needed. --Mimo&maxus i am a cunt Hyperbole created this sig

Bevanz provided the images 23:28, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

You saw how easy it was to clean up? Deletionist culture is defeatist culture. -- TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 23:29, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

You mean that it's perfect right now? --Mimo&maxus i am a cunt Hyperbole created this sig

Bevanz provided the images 23:35, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

You mean there IS a gay bomb or a cat grenade? Because this is only for weapons that exist. --Mimo&maxus i am a cunt Hyperbole created this sig

Bevanz provided the images 23:37, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

Gay bomb is real. Cat grenade is theoretically real, if someone wanted to put a grenade in a cat. Anyway, if you have any weapons that would make the article better then you are definitely welcome to add them, or to alter the current entries yourself. -- TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 01:49, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

A Suggestion

I'd like to propose that no individual be allowed to post more than say 10 articles on VFD in any week/month or whatever time period people are happy with. I might also like to put forward the suggestion that people are only allowed to vote here for fixed periods too in order for them to take a break. It does seem obvious that the same names are appearing here over and over again which in some cases gives the impression of a focus on deletion rather than on improving and contributing to articles. Would be interested in hearing the opinions of others... -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me)

Nominating 10 in a month is more than enough. VFD is now a factory. mAttlobster. (hello) 17:36, July 17, 2011 (UTC)

Everyone has something they do to improve the wiki. For some people, it's writing articles. For some people, fixing articles. For some people, it's finding awful ones to delete - so that the good articles aren't flooded out by the bad and unfunny. For some people, it's making sure current policies are enforced. For some people, it's cleaning out the maintenance queue every day. For some people, it's writing scripts to improve the wiki, whether those be in PHP bot scripts or Java Script. For some people, it's just plain voting. All of these people, including the ones here, have their place on Uncyclopedia and do what they can to improve it. So no, I wouldn't recommend certain individuals take a break from VFD any more than MadMax should take a break from categorizing or Thekillerfroggy from writing. No one person does everything on Uncyclopedia, but everyone who's still around tends to do something important that they're good at.
RE: VFD specifically - VFH and VFD have always been notoriously low, and I have to say I'm thrilled to see the current buzz around VFD that there hasn't been for as long as I can remember. I wouldn't want to artificially restrict that. It's taken the VFDers a long while to get here. Thanks to the new tags, the QA patrollers , and last but certainly not least, the wonderful community of people who participate on VFD, our article count is finally dropping, very slowly, but at least it's happening. As I said, everyone has their place, and the goal of the people on here is to get rid of the crap that has plagued the site and left it with an unfunny reputation for years too long. So I'm proud of what everyone is doing here.
In closing, I ask you this. You seem to be implying that VFD is doing too well. Is it actually possible for a voting page to do too well? Could you have too many people on VFH voting constructively? I think the answer is no, and the same applies here; increased activity is a positive thing, not a negative thing. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 17:41 Jul 17, 2011

But the focus of VFH or even VFP are entirely different, at worst you can say that with either a bit of work or getting enough idiots to back you up you can get a featured articles on the front page for a day. VFD involves no work at all (which leaves us with the requirement of only needing enough idiots to back you) and the outcome is that someones work is removed from the website. The message that sends is very different to anything produced by VFH. I've never denied that sometimes the better option is to delete, hell I've lost count of the amount of articles I've deleted over the years, but such a large number of articles get nuked that are more than salvagable that a lot of people are increasingly frustrated. -- Sir Mhaille

(talk to me)

And yet there are thousands upon thousands of others remaining that are even better off and more worthwhile to fix up. No one is going to salvage all of them; we don't have the manpower to copyedit so many articles, and no article on a subject is usually better than a crappy one. It seems more favorable for people to think "Oh, they don't have an article on this subject yet... I know a funny thing or two to say about it - maybe I'll write one!" than to think "Wow, the article on this subject isn't funny at all, just like the last ten articles I clicked on. Why am I on this site?" Besides, those who want to save an article from VFD save a copy of that article to their userspace. That's a new trend I've been seeing - "delete this now, but I request a copy." It means, yes, I agree with the others, this isn't good enough to stay in mainspace, but I see something in this that inspires me. Anyone who's frustrated by an article getting deleted these days has no excuse not to request a copy for themselves. Those "lot of people" who are "increasingly frustrated" have no excuse to be so long as they've got a working copy and paste button. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 16:29 Jul 18, 2011

That would contradict our new policies of back-door deletion, such as Forest fire week and turning the rewrite tags into fix tags. --Mn-z 00:44, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

Both here and on Wikipedia, there are inclusionists and there are deletionists. Right now, the deletionists have the upper hand around here. Hopefully, the pendulum will start swinging back towards fixing up articles before we start having too few articles on here, with the result of new stubs cropping up on notable topics instead of completed articles. Back when encyclopedias were on printed paper, there was one volume for every letter of the alphabet. That's still a lot of articles. Do we plan to delete everything that is more than 3 years old automatically unless it was featured? How far do we take deletionist policies? If we have too many articles on here, then how many SHOULD we have? -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 02:28, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

I won't deny that my name shows up frequently on VFD. It's just that when I click through random pages repeatedly, I think around 50% of what I find there would have a good chance of being deleted if put up for a vote. The very worst of those is what I bring to VFD. I take after the belief that poor quality is not preferable over nothing at all. The vast majority of the articles we have here are very far from feature quality. It's just my opinion, but I think having 30,000 articles on a joke encyclopedia is just asking for a heavy buildup of unfunny cruft. I would like to see someone come here after viewing ED and YouTube cruft to find mostly very high quality work. I would like for visitors to wonder how we can come up with professional humor on an all-volunteer site. When I see good editors put on their talkpages: "This place is gay, I'm going back to OhInternet," I feel like we have failed to stand out as a truly exceptional comedy website.

As for our own brand of "classics" around here, I wouldn't want to delete things just because they're old. If that were the case, I would have taken a stand on TONIGHT WE DINE IN HELL, Mr. Winkler is gay, AAAAAAAAA! and EuroiPods a long time ago. I actually like our old patent nonsense style of humor--it's just been taken way too far. We have enough in-jokes already, unless someone can come up with another completely original in-joke. A few extra jokes based on old in-jokes are great, because it establishes our brand of humor; I just think five dozen copies of My Sojourn is rather excessive. I think most of the classic jokes around here were taken to their limits a long time ago.

Put simply, I think if something is considered unfunny by some users, while being disliked by more than 60% of them, then it should go. The only way to measure that is with a vote. Encouraging more users to vote on VFD would undoubtedly make that measurement more accurate, but restricting the amounts of allowed votes from each user has the potential of skewing those results. I have given a lot of articles the benefit of the doubt and left them to their own devices, only to see them VFD'd weeks or months later with someone wondering how they passed QVFD. That just wastes everyone's time, including that of the author who was mislead into thinking his contributions were acceptable. If I were writing an article, I would want to know in advance if my work was bad, rather than spend valuable time on it just to see it deleted a month later.

...And that concludes my ramblings for the day. -- Sir "TheSlyPony" Invariably certifiable. 03:24 July 18, 2011 (UTC)

Indeed; preventing people from voting would just make things worse. More votes means a more accurate representation of the overall arbitrary sense of what folks seem to want to keep in general, but what they want to keep will probably only continue to grow more picky as the overall quality of the site improves. That's what VFD is a part of, improving the overall. Making space for folks to create new articles without deadwood in the way, getting rid of crap or redundancy apt to drive folks off, that kind of thing.

1 2 3 4 ~ 18:36, 18 July 2011

Against The reason we see the same names over and over again on VFD is because those are our active users. They are (mostly) the same people you also see nominating things on VFH and VFP and voting on those same pages. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 03:26, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

And also they're clones. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 06:09, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

Why were they kept?

Five votes and two keeps. Why was it kept? --EpicAwesomeness (talk) 06:40, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

Good question. Also, you meant five delete votes and two keep votes. --Andorin Kato 06:48, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

Because it had a score of 3 after nearly 3 days. We only delete pages with a score of 5. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 11:14, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

He REALLY must hate that article... --Ga mma287

22:15, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

NOW WAIT A MINUTE! HowTo:Masturbate had a score of 4, but you still deleted it. wtf? --Wilytank can be a pain in the ass. 00:13, August 30, 2011 (UTC)

It probably had a score of 4 before my implied delete vote. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 16:26, August 30, 2011 (UTC)

Dude! Implied delete votes are bullshit! Make it official dammit! --Wilytank can be a pain in the ass. 11:22, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

We have had implied votes for as long as I have been around. I believe the rule is (supposed to be) -5 or -4 plus the implied vote of the deleting admin. I does save a marginal amount of time, and it is far from the worst admin behavior on the site. --Mn-z 00:19, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

RANT ALERT

Hate hate hat.

So, here's the rant:

“

...Even if it a marginal keep, it better get moved into someone's userspace or get rewritten right away or it's coming right back. See, that's one of the problems with VFD. An article is kept because the majority vote keep saying "it's keepable, a quick fix and it'll be OK", and it's kept, but everyone forgets about and we're left with a three-quarters bullshit article which can't go back to VFD and is just standing there waiting to be improved. An example which comes to mind is The Minority Report. Admittedly, it was kept because it didn't garner enough votes for a delete, but one of the keepers said "Time to swoop in, save it, and et cetera...". The most recent edit is from August, when the VFD template was removed. See, something needs to be done about this, like pasting this into the Dump and moaning about it there.

”

And here are the replies...

But srsly, something needs do be done. --EpicAwesomeness (talk) 15:48, September 26, 2011 (UTC)

If something that should have got deleted doesn't, then really not much harm has been done. mAttlobster. (hello) 17:10, September 26, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with SuperCaptainEpicAwesomenessMan. I, for one, have done my part. /me forgets what he was saying and goes off to do something random ~ BB ~ (T)

~ Mon, Sep 26 '11 17:18 (UTC)

You can't keep your cake and delete it too. Also, you seriously need to fix your signature Beaver. -- TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 21:49, September 26, 2011 (UTC)

Yeaaaaah...just love that {{Nosubst}} bizzniss. ~ BB ~ (T)

~ Mon, Sep 26 '11 22:15 (UTC)

Definitely an elaborate conspiracy

22:48 Uncyclopedia:Votes for deletion‎‎ (6 changes | hist) . . (+1,276) . . [Just!n‎; Bizzeebeever‎ (2×); Sockpuppet of an unregistered user‎ (3×)]
What's this? A Just!n and a Beever on the same page, voting keep? O_o —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 22:47, 14 October 2011

Does my name look like "bieber" to you? I've been "bizzeebeever" on the internet for 5+ years. So, no. ~ BB ~ (T)

~ Fri, Oct 14 '11 23:47 (UTC)

That IP has produced the subtle urge to yell EXTERMINATE. --Ga mma287

11:36, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

What in the blue hell is going on here? The things that happen in my absence... I turn my back for one minute and suddenly VFD turns into Bedlam. 2K12_DAN.VRS

22:23, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Is there a red hell? --Ga mma287

22:48, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

I don't like red hell. Fuckers slapped my ass when I was walking to the pool, and I'm a guy, so that's technically rape. --AlmightyGameDude 23:49, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

Try Red Herring. I hear it's a lot tastier. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk)

GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 00:01, 30 November 2011

How in the chartreuse hell did we get to this? --Ga mma287

00:39, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

What in the yellow hell are you on about? Didn't we discuss You already? --AlmightyGameDude 01:49, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

What about puce hell are you talking about?!? --Ga mma287

02:32, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

What the fuck!? TKF, don't you know what happened last time someone did that?! -- 18:53, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

They got nominated for UotY? -- TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 18:53, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

Er... yes, that's true, but no. --

18:58, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

I've got a techy guy looking at restoring it. Also, we should archive the history to stop this happening again (or fix mediawiki) --- sannse<staff/> (talk) 19:35, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

De-Op TKF. --Wilytank can be a pain in the ass. 20:13, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's back... mostly. Looks like we lost the last few edits in all that, so if your article was nominated just then - Happy Birthday! For everyone else, sorry :-/ -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 23:32, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to fix the last few edits? Or should I go ahead and re-nom Wey and Tales of an Emo? --Wilytank can be a pain in the ass. 23:37, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

Please go ahead and renom... it looks like we won't be able to get those last 30 back I'm afraid -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 23:50, January 1, 2012 (UTC)